President William Lai (賴清德) on Tuesday last week said that “Taiwan would absolutely not sign a cross-strait peace accord,” underlining that peace should be achieved from a position of strength.
The president made the address at a meeting with community-based groups committed to civil defense, a day ahead of the Presidential Office’s first Whole-of-Society Defense Resilience Committee meeting.
“We must rely on our own strength to achieve peace. Peace based on a piece of paper is not reliable,” Lai said.
In 1995 and 2008, then-Chinese presidents Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) made major statements in which they mentioned signing a peace accord with Taiwan. However, they said that any negotiations would have to take place under the precondition of the “one China principle,” which denies the existence of the Republic of China (ROC) and claims that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. China’s insistence on this prerequisite has not changed since.
The experience of Xinjiang and Tibet are instructive. In 1949, Xinjiang reached an agreement with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) after previously being mostly under the control of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). In 1951, Tibet signed a seven-point “peace treaty” with the CCP, which pledged to respect Tibet’s autonomy. Xinjiang and Tibet were then occupied by the People’s Liberation Army under the name of “liberation.” Those peace agreements were used by China to justify its invasions and to consolidate its genocidal domination of those territories.
As for the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which guaranteed Hong Kong’s autonomy for at least 50 years, China has invalided that treaty and abandoned its “one-country, two systems” pledge to turn it into a territory under full authoritarian rule.
In 2011, then president and KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) also expressed an intention to engage in political talks and sign a peace accord with China. This was included into the KMT’s party platform in 2016, under the premise that the sovereignty of the ROC and Taiwan’s dignity would not be compromised. However, the KMT had already negotiated two peace agreements with the CCP, the “Double Tenth Agreement” of 1945 and an eight-article “domestic peace agreement” designed to bring about the KMT’s surrender to the CCP — the latter was never signed. These agreements were followed by the loss of China and the KMT’s retreat to Taiwan.
Fortunately, nothing came of Ma’s proposal, which faced massive objections from the public. However, China has never renounced its basic policy of pressuring Taiwan to accept unification.
The international community, especially democratic allies and like-minded states, have condemned Russia for breaking the 1994 “Memorandum on Security Assurance” to launch a military invasion of Ukraine. They have also increasingly called for peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. It is important to make clear what kind of cross-strait peace and “status quo” Taiwanese desire to avoid being strung along by China’s rhetoric, which would risk Taiwan’s sovereignty and be tantamount to conceding that Taiwan is part of China.
The Lai administration is a minority government facing legislative stalemates and constraints from pro-China opposition parties. These parties have hindered attempts to increase the defense budget, and impeded defense mobilization and deployment. This can be seen as “proxy war,” with China attempting to pressure Taiwan to compromise on its “peaceful reunification” ambitions.
Lai’s statement that peace must be based on strength has clarified that Taiwan is seeking peace based on the preconditions of safeguarding Taiwan’s autonomy and dignity. It is a declaration of the public’s determination to safeguard their national sovereignty that should be heard domestically and internationally.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS